Content-Based Instruction / Content and Language Integrated Learning

Historical Background

The term content-based instruction (CBI), or content and language integrated learning (CLIL) as it is known in Europe, refers to a variety of instructional models in which academic subject matter is taught in a second or foreign language, such that students learn academic content and language skills simultaneously. Widdowson (1978), an early proponent of the integration of content and language learning, explains the concept as follows:

The kind of language course that I envisage is one which deals with a selection of topics taken from the other subjects: simple experiments in physics and chemistry, biological processes in plants and animals, map-drawing, descriptions of historical events and so on. . . . It is easy to see that if such a procedure were adopted, the difficulties associated with the presentation of language use in the classroom would, to a considerable degree, disappear. The presentation would essentially be the same as the methodological techniques used for introducing the topics in the subjects from which they were drawn. (p. 16)The notion of studying academic content in a second language is not new; the concept was advocated by St. Augustine as early as 389 A.D. (cited in Brinton, Snow, & Wesche, 1989). In Europe, long after Latin had ceased to be spoken in the vernacular, it continued to be the language of academic instruction. In more recent times, upper-class European families have often sent their children to study abroad in order to learn a foreign language.

Modern emphasis on content-based instruction stems from several simultaneous developments in Canada, the United Kingdom, and the United States. Immersion education, an instructional model in which students receive academic instruction in a foreign language from the outset of their public schooling, was established in Canada in 1965 and soon spread to the United States. In Great Britain, a 1975 government report advocated a focus on reading and writing in all academic subject areas, not just English classes. The slogan associated with this report, "every teacher an English teacher," became influential in the U.S. as well as the U.K. and inspired experimentation with content-based instructional models. A concurrent development was the emergence of language for specific purposes (LSP) programs in the U.K. and later in the U.S. LSP programs aim to teach adults the second language skills they need in order to function in specific professional contexts, such as health, law enforcement, science, or technology.

A variety of content-based instructional models are currently in use. According to Stryker and Leaver (1997), all of these models share three characteristics: (a) they are based on a subject-matter core, (b) they use authentic language and texts (with "authentic texts" defined as those primarily produced for native speakers), and (c) they are appropriate to the needs of specific groups of students. Snow (2001) presents a typology of content-based models that includes immersion education, theme-based instruction, sheltered content instruction, and adjunct instruction.

Immersion education is a model in which native English-speaking elementary school students receive the majority of their academic instruction in a foreign language. In partial immersion models, English and the foreign language are each used approximately 50% of the time. A considerable body of research on immersion programs has demonstrated that students consistently perform at or above grade level scholastically while learning a second language, and their English language development is not impaired (Genesee, 1987).

Theme-based instruction refers to language teaching in which the content centers on themes drawn from one academic subject (e.g., science) or from across the curriculum (the environment, nutrition, the family, etc.). Stoller and Grabe (1997) use the term "theme-based instruction" as a synonym for content-based instruction in general, claiming that "all CBI is fundamentally theme-based" (p. 81). Snow (2001), on the other hand, reserves the term for programs in which "selected topics or themes provide the content from which teachers extract language learning activities" (p. 306), and which are therefore driven more by language than by content.

Sheltered content instruction is a model in which second language learners are separated or "sheltered" from native-speaking students for the purpose of academic content instruction. The focus is on presenting content in such a way that it will be comprehensible to language learners. Examples include "ESL Science" or "ESL Math" classes.

Adjunct language instruction is a model in which students simultaneously enroll in a language course and a content course. These courses have mutually coordinated materials and assignments so that the language course supports students" learning in the content course. Second language learners may be sheltered in the language course, whereas they may be integrated with native speakers in the content course. The adjunct model has typically been employed at the university level, where such linking or "adjuncting" of courses is possible (Snow, 2001), and as such it forms a part of the larger Foreign Languages Across the Curriculum (FLAC) movement in U.S. universities (Stryker & Leaver, 1997).

In general, content-based instruction has been implemented more widely in ESL programs than it has in traditional foreign language programs. In our experience, many if not most ESL programs employ some form of content-based instruction, whereas CBI in foreign language programs tends to be the exception rather than the rule, at least in the United States. Although contemporary foreign language textbooks contain units based on themes such as family, food, and leisure activities, these themes tend to be subordinated to linguistic content (Stryker & Leaver, 1997). At least one study (Cammarata, 2009) found that a group of foreign language teachers in the U.S. viewed CBI as an "idealistic" model that they would have difficulty implementing in a traditional classroom setting.

Theory of Language and Language Learning

Content-based instruction is based on the rationale that "people learn a second language more successfully when they use the language as a means of acquiring information, rather than as an end in itself" (Richards & Rodgers, 2001, p. 207). Krashen (1981) posits that students acquire language when they are exposed to "comprehensible input." CBI provides abundant input in the form of authentic subject-matter materials, and CBI instructors employ a variety of techniques to make this input comprehensible to students, thus fulfilling Krashen's conditions for language acquisition. Indeed, Krashen claims that "comprehensible subject-matter teaching is language teaching" (p. 62).

A second rationale for CBI is that it is thought to be more motivating than traditional grammar-focused instruction. Advocates of CBI claim that students are motivated to learn when the instructional materials are based on topics that they find interesting and relevant. In addition, CBI's focus on addressing students' needs, especially when the curriculum helps students fulfill immediate academic requirements, can be inherently motivating.

CBI also fits well within a general communicative approach to language teaching and learning. Communicative approaches maintain that language is a tool for communicating and is therefore best learned by using it to communicate, that is, to read, listen to, speak and write about meaningful topics. As such, "the curricula of the so-called content subjects (e.g., geography, history, business studies, etc.) constitute a reservoir of concepts, topics and meanings which can become the object of 'real communication' where natural language use is possible" (Dalton-Puffer, 2007, p. 3).

Additional support for CBI comes from research in the fields of education, cognitive psychology, and linguistics. This research includes studies on cooperative learning, strategy instruction, extensive reading, cognitive learning theory, depth-of-processing research, and discourse comprehension processing research. (For a review of these studies and their implications for CBI, see Snow and Brinton, 1997.)

Classroom Activities

In content-based instruction, the thematic content provides the materials around which listening, speaking, reading, and writing activities are based. Although various content-based models may follow different instructional sequences, they often tend to follow a "receptive-to-productive" sequence (Snow, 2001). A lesson may begin by introducing students to the content through a teacher monologue, a video or audio recording, or printed materials. After discussing the content of these materials, students' attention is drawn to linguistic features such as key vocabulary items and linguistic structures. Students may be provided with a list of topic-related vocabulary or an explanation of relevant structures and may participate in activities designed to practice these words, expressions, or structures in the context of the thematic content. Gradually, students progress toward more open-ended speaking and writing activities related to the content.

Content-based instruction lends itself naturally to cooperative learning activities. Students can work in groups to brainstorm ideas about the topic at hand or prepare group projects or presentations related to the topic. Shaw (1997) suggests using jigsaw-reading techniques in which sets of readings are assigned to pairs of students who then report on the content to their classmates. Such activities provide opportunities for students to develop speaking ability and to solidify their understanding of linguistic structures as they "negotiate meaning" in the language.

Content-based instruction also provides an ideal setting for the teaching of language learning strategies. Research on strategy instruction has demonstrated that it works best when integrated within the regular curriculum as a consistent feature of content and language instruction (Grabe & Stoller, 1997). Because students in content-based courses must read, listen to, speak, and write in the target language, teachers in these courses often make it a point to discuss with their students various strategies when using each of these language skills.

One common challenge facing teachers of content-based language courses is making the content comprehensible to students, which is sometimes referred to as "scaffolding" or "sheltering." Teachers may employ a variety of strategies and activities to promote comprehension, including the following:

• Activating students' background knowledge prior to reading and listening activities and helping students anticipate the content of texts.
• Providing contextual clues to meaning, including gestures, visuals, realia, or graphic organizers.
• Modify their own speech, speaking somewhat more slowly, enunciating clearly, and controlling their vocabulary.
• Checking students' comprehension by asking them to provide examples, paraphrase, or summarize key information.

Notes on the Video

The video features an advanced-level ESL class in International Studies, taught by Kristi Lundstrom of the English Language Center at Brigham Young University.

References

Brinton, D. M., Snow, M. A., & Wesche, M. B. (1989). Content-based second language instruction. Boston: Heinle & Heinle.

Cammarata, L. (2009). Negotiating curricular transitions: Foreign language teachers' learning experience with content-based instruction. Canadian Modern Language Review, 65, 559-585.

Dalton-Puffer, C. (2007). Discourse in content and language integrated learning (CLIL) classrooms. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Genesee, F. (1987). Learning through two languages. New York: Newbury House.

Grabe, W., & Stoller, F. L. (1997). Content-based instruction: Research foundations. In M. A.

Krashen, S. (1981). Second language acquisition and second language learning. Oxford: Pergamon Press.

Richards, J. C., & Rodgers, T. S. (2001). Approaches and methods in language teaching (2^nd ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Shaw, P. A. (1997). With one stone: Models of instruction and their curricular implications in an advanced content-based foreign language program. In S. B. Stryker & B. L. Leaver (Eds.), Content-based instruction in foreign language education (pp. 259-282). Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.

Snow, M. A. (2001). Content-based and immersion models for second and foreign language teaching. In M. Celce-Murcia (Ed.), Teaching English as a second or foreign language (3^rd ed., pp. 303-318.). Boston: Heinle & Heinle.

Snow & D. M. Brinton (Eds.), The content-based classroom: Perspectives on integrating language and content (pp. 5-21). White Plains, NY: Addison Wesley Longman.

Snow & D. M. Brinton (Eds.), The content-based classroom: Perspectives on integrating language and content (pp. 78-94). White Plains, NY: Addison Wesley Longman.

Stoller, F. L., & Grabe, W. (1997). A six-T's approach to content-based instruction. In M. A.

Stryker, S. & Leaver, B. (1993). Content-based instruction in foreign language education. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.

Widdowson, H. (1978). Teaching language as communication. Oxford: Oxford University Press.